On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:31:06 +0200, Sami P Perttu wrote: > The more I'm thinking about this the more biased I am toward just one > process() that replaces values. And an in-place-is-okay hint. No gains or > DRY and WET controls. The host can probably reserve some host-global > buffers for mixing, no? The cache impact wouldn't be big in that case. > Somebody should do some actual measurements to find out.
You still need WET and DRY, even if you have mixing. I only have a PC100 machine here, so theres no point me measuring it. > > ...pitch... > > I'm still having problems understanding why logarithmic frequency is > better than linear. Doesn't it violate the principle of keeping plugins as > simple as possible? Most plugins need linear frequency. How is the > conversion done? Well, maybe there could be a control iterator that > provides for it. Please tell me about your plan. Linear pitch (logartihmic frequency) is just what people expect. When you modulte the cutoff of a filter (for example) you expect it to modulate logarithmicly. - Steve
